A recent Quiner’s Diner post stirred up a hornet’s nest: “This article is false and misleading. Ultrasounds are sometimes done at Planned Parenthood, if a doctor feels it is necessary, and the patient consents. It is not routine, and it is always a medical, not a political, decision. And that’s the point. Ultrasounds should be performed on a case-by-case basis for medical reasons; they should not be mandated by government at any level for all patients.” A former Planned Parenthood insider spills the beans on what really happens at Planned Parenthood on this critical issue … More…
Monthly Archives: February 2012
Born alive, left to die 1
By Tom Quiner
You’re viewing a tragic sight.
Right before your very eyes, you’re watching a baby struggle for life. With immediate medical intervention, she might live. Without it, she will be dead shortly.
What should you do?
This is isn’t a hypothetical question. It happens when abortions take place. Sometimes the abortion “fails” and the baby is born alive. I wrote about just such an occurrence last summer when I heard Melissa Ohden speak (“Life is Beautiful.”)
Ms. Ohden’s Mom aborted her, but Melissa didn’t die. She struggled for life on a cold slab. The medical personnel attended to the Mom and assumed Melissa was dead. When the nurse noticed she was, in fact, still breathing, Iowa law required that prompt medical attention be provided in an attempt to save the life that the doctor had tried to end moments earlier.
Is this a good law?
What an important question in light of the shifting landscape on matters of life and death.
Yesterday, I wrote about Pete Singer and his nihilistic philosophy. He wrote an article called “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life,” in the 1983 issue of Pediatrics, which is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is amazing a serious journal would provide space to this type of thinking:
“If we compare a severely defective human infant with a non-human animal, a dog or pig, for example, we will often find the non-human to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.”
Mr. Singer considers the dog or pig more morally significant than a human being. But this bothers him not at all:
“Is the erosion of the sanctity-of-lifeview really so alarming? Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term ‘human’ has been stripped away … we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species. [Instead], we may start to look at human life as it really is: at the quality of life that each human being has or can achieve.”
Are Mr. Singer’s views really so far out any more? Fast forward eighteen years to Illinois. Their state legislature is
This baby boy, Rowan, was aborted at 21 weeks, survived, and was left to die.
attempting to pass an “infant born alive” bill like Iowa has, you know, the one that saved Melissa Ohden’s life. A single state senator refused to vote for the bill. His name was Barack Obama. Please understand that without this bill, the Melissa Ohden’s of the world are left to die.
Just ask Jill Stanek.
She was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago where she discovered babies were being aborted alive ala the Pete Singer philosophy. Interestingly, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright served on the Board of Directors for Evangelical Health Systems, the parent company for Christ Hospital that was aborting babies born alive.
Jill Stanek testified before Congress on these atrocities, upon which, Christ Hospital fired her. However, her testimony led to passage of a national born alive piece of legislation that passed unanimously in the Senate.
Barack Obama was against it and refused to vote for a similar piece of legislation three times at the state level when he had a chance.
Mr. Obama and his religious mentor, Mr. Wright, were not scrutinized on this matter by the mainstream media four years ago. This is significant because the same media is scrutinizing Rick Santorum’s every word. They are trying to depict him as loony for putting human life on a pedestal at the same time they honor Barack Obama for dismissing it as if it is a disease in need in eradication.
Mr. Obama takes Pete Singer’s message to heart that we need to strip away this religious mumbo jumbo surrounding what is human. To that end, the Obama Mandate imperiously strips away all religious conscience rights from faith-based organizations.
Pete Singer’s philosophy, as discussed these past two days in this blog, is slowly but surely moving into the mainstream championed by Barack Obama who is pulling his pliable party along for the ride.
The Democratic Party IS pliable. They go where the votes and money are on critical life issues as shown in Sunday’s post (“The evolution of principle”).
The philosophies of Pete Singer and Barack Obama vary in degree, not substance.
How in God’s name were so many Christians fooled by this man?
Like this:
Prelude to nihilism 7
By Tom Quiner
You need to get to know Pete Singer. Fast.
Pete Singer, atheist
Mr. Singer is an Australian philosopher with associations with Princeton University in the U.S. and the University of Melbourne in Australia.
Mr. Singer is an atheist with a unique philosophy: human life is no more valuable than mosquitos, muskrats, or mackerel, or, for that matter, any other life form on Mother Earth.
There is nothing special about man. Since there is no God, in his view, man was certainly not made in the image of any deity.
Here is why you need to keep Mr. Singer and his acolytes on your radar. He believes that …
“being a member of the human species does not confer a right to life.”
You only have moral worth in his eyes if you possess certain properties, such as self-awareness, an understanding of desires, the ability to envision the future, and the capacity to feel pain.
In the debate over abortion, the pro life side asks: what is the difference between a baby five minutes after she is born compared to five minutes before she was born? Pro abortion advocates hem and haw but still maintain she has no human rights until after she is born.
Not Pete Singer. He believes she has no human rights for the first several years of her life until she begins to develop the characteristics above. Until then, her parents should be allowed to kill her with impunity.
I’m serious.
Mr. Singer maintains that “being human in the biological sense is of no intrinsic human significance.” We are disposable at the whim of the powerful. Mr. Singer is clear in expressing his philosophy:
“Killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”
Why waste time talking about Pete Singer? After all, most folks consider his view to be nutty. Right? Don’t be paranoid, let’s focus on the real issues of the day like jobs, healthcare, and reproductive rights.
Right?
Wrong. Nutty views today can become mainstream tomorrow. I proved that with yesterday’s post (“The evolution of principle.”)
In one short decade, the Democratic Party rejected their two hundred year history of looking out for the little guy and denied that human beings have a right to life. In the next short decade, they decided that choice wasn’t enough. They decided that women have a fundamental right to an abortion, and that taxpayers should pay for it.
Today’s kooky idea can become tomorrow’s mainstream idea in the hands of the powerful who can profit by rejecting their principles, as the Democratic Party has.
Today, Democrats believe human life is not only disposable, but should be treated as a disease and prevented, at taxpayer expense, no less. Freedom of religion be damned.
Can you imagine sitting across from Harry Truman back in 1948 and saying, “President Truman, I believe we should not only legalize abortion, we should make taxpayers pay for it. Even more, it is imperative that we impose it on religious organizations, especially Catholic ones.”
What would have been Mr. Truman’s reaction? He would have thrown you out of his office. He might have even had you committed, since you were certainly talking like a nutcase.
When a political party has no principles, anything is possible.
The Pete Singers of the world can have tremendous influence on people with no moral bearing. The Obama Mandate is the biggest issue of our time. If the president and his party pull this off, anything goes.
The Obama Mandate is simply a prelude to nihilism where life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.
Peter Singer needs to be stopped.
The Obama Mandate needs to be stopped.
Mr. President, life really does have meaning.
Like this:
The evolution of principle 4
By Tom Quiner
What is a principle?
It is an essential truth upon which other truths are based.
Former U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, embraced a principle that human life begins at conception. He was clear and unequivocal:
Al Gore
“It is my deep personal conviction that abortion is wrong. I hope that some day we will see the current outrageously large number of abortions drop sharply.”
In 1987, he wrote to a constituent the following:
“During my 11 years in congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding for abortions. In my opinion, it is wrong to spend federal funds for what is arguably taking of a human life. Let me assure you that I share your belief that innocent human life must be protected, and I am committed to furthering this goal.”
Al Gore’s essential truth was clear: abortion kills a human being.
The late Senator Edward Kennedy was even more eloquent in his defense of human life at its earliest stages:
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is
Edward Kennedy
my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.”
What separates man from the animals? It is the ability to love. Senator Kennedy recognized that man is made in God’s image. What is God? Why God is an eternal exchange of love, says Pope Benedict XVI. Ted Kennedy acknowledged the right to life on the basis that every human being, from her or his conception, has the right to love. After all, God IS love.
Mr. Kennedy’s support for the rights of the preborn was grounded in the longstanding tradition of American liberalism to watch out for the little guy, as powerfully confirmed with these words of compassion:
“I share the confidence of those who feel that America is working to care for its unwanted as well as wanted children, protecting particularly those who cannot protect themselves. I also share the opinions of those who do not accept abortion as a response to our society’s problems — an inadequate welfare system, unsatisfactory job training programs, and insufficient financial support for all its citizens. When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
Mssrs. Gore and Kennedy were joined in their commitment to life by other stalwarts of the Democratic Party.
Former Congressman and presidential candidate, Richard Gephardt, was crystal clear in his support of the principle that human life begins at conception in these words from 1984:
Dick Gephardt
“Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception…. The [Supreme Court's abortion] ruling was unjust, and it is incumbent on the Congress to correct the injustice. I have always been supportive of pro-life legislation. I intend to remain steadfast on this issue…. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.”
The Reverend Jesse Jackson, a man of God and former Democratic candidate for president, compared abortion to slavery:
“There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life … that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.”
Mr. Jackson’s point is compelling. With soaring rhetoric, he extrapolated that unchecked abortion rights could create a “hell right here on earth” …
“What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the
Jesse Jackson
life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.”
Even former President Bill Clinton, voiced his opposition to abortion in these remarks in 1986 when he was Governor of Arkansas:
Bill Clinton
“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”
Mr. Clinton’s remarks were revealing, though. You’ll notice that he wasn’t opposed to abortion based on an essential truth. Rather, he opposed it because enough voters thought it was wrong.
Mr. Clinton revealed the true principle of his party. They weren’t truly concerned with the little guy. They were concerned about votes. They wanted power. They had their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing, and when it shifted direction, they abandoned their essential truth and embraced another. And so each of the men quoted above not only changed their mind on this subject, they became vocal supporters of unfettered abortion rights.
This wasn’t a little issue like, say, the minimum wage. This was a life and death issue. And one by one, the party of the little guy abandoned their essential principle to win votes from a powerful and growing constituency, liberal, anti life feminists.
For years, Democrats tried to straddle this issue in their Platform by calling for abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.” But by 2008 and the arrival of Barack Obama, they dropped the charade. Their Platform, which expresses their current essential truths, is clear:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
Not only do they view abortion as a fundamental right, they have set the stage for taxpayers to fund their newest essential truth, regardless of the religious sensibilities of the electorate.
The Democratic Party now says that the essential truth they so fervently embraced yesterday was wrong, that they have discovered a new essential truth in abortion.
Who knows what they will believe in tomorrow? Anything is possible for a party that believes Truth is fluid.
In the meantime, 54 million Americans are dead because of their abandonment of their principle and hell has come to earth.
Like this:
Ultrasound is standard medical care 6
Performing an ultrasound before an abortion should be a commonsense standard of care for abortion providers. Ultrasound assists an abortion provider in determining gestational age. The farther along in pregnancy a woman is, or the possibility that the pregnancy is ectopic, the greater the risk that abortion poses. More…
